GR 107297; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107297-98, December 19, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN DEL ROSARIO y VICENTE, ARTHUR CAÑEDO y REYES, ABNER PERALTA and JESUS GARCIA @ “TUPAK”, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
Appellants Abner Peralta, Jesus Garcia, and Edwin del Rosario were convicted by the Regional Trial Court for Murder and Theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the murder convictions, modifying the penalties, and acquitted Peralta and Garcia of theft while convicting Del Rosario as an accessory. The CA elevated the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review as reclusion perpetua was imposed. During pendency of review, it was discovered that the personal bail bonds posted by appellants Peralta, Garcia, and Del Rosario were forged documents. Warrants of arrest were subsequently issued. Peralta and Garcia were apprehended, but Del Rosario remained at large.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal of the appellants should be dismissed due to their filing of forged bail bonds and subsequent evasion of custody.
RULING
No, the appeal was not dismissed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision. The Court ruled that by filing forged bail bonds, appellants are considered not merely to have jumped bail but to have escaped from detention. This act constitutes a deliberate mockery of the judicial process. Under established jurisprudence, an appellant who escapes from custody or jumps bail is deemed to have waived the right to appeal, and the court may dismiss the appeal. However, the Court exercised its discretion and chose not to dismiss the appeal in this instance. The Court reasoned that dismissing the appeal would result in the trial court’s decision, which imposed lighter penalties, becoming final. This would unjustly benefit the appellants who had mocked the court. To avoid this mockery of justice, the Court affirmed the CA’s modified decision, which imposed the heavier penalty of reclusion perpetua for murder on Peralta and Garcia. The Court thereby upheld the CA’s correct judgment while penalizing the appellants’ contumacious conduct through the affirmation of the stricter penalties. The Court also directed the NBI to investigate the forgery and initiate criminal proceedings.